PvP Discussion: Automated Tournaments

Comments

@Thane.9421 said:
At one time as I understand it, there was a tournament system in place where players could actually start a tournament. I'd like to suggest something like this be implemented again, where it launches once a required number of teams sign up, say. My primary reasoning is that the data seems to suggest a team queue would not work, but ATs currently aren't enough of an attraction to keep 5 man teams playing PvP. By introducing player-started ATs, you're creating a system where teams can be matched against other full teams without actually using the queue system.

I could see various options with rewards; from being purely given out by the tournament itself, to having teams have to pay an entree fee and basing rewards out of the prize pool generated by the entree fees. Even if there were no rewards at all, this would be an easier way for teams in the community to get in touch and get scrims happening etc. than the current completely word of mouth situation which seems to be stagnating heavily.

We discussed the viability of player sponsored tournaments internally a while back. Our thoughts were that players could pay a fee, a % of that fee would go towards prize money and the sponsor could choose the format. (Conquest, 2v2, Stronghold, Courtyard, etc etc.). Additionally, I wanted players to be able to donate gold to the prize pool.

We have pretty big concerns that the system just wouldn't get used. And it's not a small task to implement such a system. Given all the priorities we have, we decided to set the idea aside.

So I'm curious, how many would actually use such a system and sponsor their own tournament? Who would donate gold to a tournament?

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
This thread is to discuss the Automated Tournaments system. As a start, I’ll talk about what we’re working on for tournaments right now.

Swiss Style Tournaments
We’re changing the format of tournaments to Swiss. Swiss style tournaments will give teams more matches in the tournament. One loss doesn’t necessarily mean you’re done. After a number of Swiss rounds, we’ll cut to a Top X number of teams for a single elimination bracket. The finals will be changed to best 2 of 3. The number of Swiss rounds and the number involved in single elimination will be determined by the overall number of participants.

Tournament Capacity
We’re restructuring tournaments to greatly increase the number of teams that can be supported. While this isn’t terribly important with current tournament participation, we want to be ready for our next set of plans.

Special Tournaments
The tournament system was designed in a way that allows us to add one-off tournaments fairly easily. This means, we can do things like add 2v2 or Stronghold tournaments fairly easily. Once we’ve finished with Swiss and tournament capacity, we will start making use of this feature.

Looks great. Has there been any thought to allowing tourney matches to count towards players ratings?

Because of the radically different format, I feel like it's appropriate that it doesn't contribute to your skill rating.

@Aden.9306 said:
I don't suppose you guys could sprinkle in more Automated Tournaments during Spvp's prime time throughout the week and on weekends. Like when the maximum amount of people are playing Spvp, so we don't need to wait five hours between tourneys.

We added a 4th recently. One thing we're considering is looking into having an "On Demand" tournament. Perhaps it launches when X number of teams register. The other thing we'd have to consider is that the current reward levels are acceptable because of the limited number of them. But we could do something like greatly reduce the rewards for "On Demand" tournaments to compensate.

So I'm curious, how many would actually use such a system and sponsor their own tournament? Who would donate gold to a tournament?

I would definitely sponsor tournaments, though I suspect having one player have to pay the entire fee rather than having a pay-to-register format wouldn't be quite as popular. The attraction of pay-to-register is each player chipping in a small amount with a possibility of a larger reward if they win. That being said, even if the player started tournaments had no rewards at all, if they were visible somewhere like in the lfg panel, it's still a way of encouraging 5v5 team play.

Another suggestion based on a similar system I've seen in another game: allow the player starting the tournament to either name the tournament (like we can name private arenas) or outright have the tournament include their account/character name. Basically, it becomes a prestige thing to be seen sponsoring pvp tournaments.

In connection with this, is there any way we could see in-game messages zone-wide when an AT or player sponsored tournament is, say, 15 minutes out? Particularly if the zone-wide message lists the name of the tournament, including the sponsor's name, if player sponsored. A big part of what's cause player-run tournaments to fail or have low turnout in the past, imo was simply people in game having no idea they were happening, unless they were really into the pvp scene.

@Thane.9421 said:
At one time as I understand it, there was a tournament system in place where players could actually start a tournament. I'd like to suggest something like this be implemented again, where it launches once a required number of teams sign up, say. My primary reasoning is that the data seems to suggest a team queue would not work, but ATs currently aren't enough of an attraction to keep 5 man teams playing PvP. By introducing player-started ATs, you're creating a system where teams can be matched against other full teams without actually using the queue system.

I could see various options with rewards; from being purely given out by the tournament itself, to having teams have to pay an entree fee and basing rewards out of the prize pool generated by the entree fees. Even if there were no rewards at all, this would be an easier way for teams in the community to get in touch and get scrims happening etc. than the current completely word of mouth situation which seems to be stagnating heavily.

We discussed the viability of player sponsored tournaments internally a while back. Our thoughts were that players could pay a fee, a % of that fee would go towards prize money and the sponsor could choose the format. (Conquest, 2v2, Stronghold, Courtyard, etc etc.). Additionally, I wanted players to be able to donate gold to the prize pool.

We have pretty big concerns that the system just wouldn't get used. And it's not a small task to implement such a system. Given all the priorities we have, we decided to set the idea aside.

So I'm curious, how many would actually use such a system and sponsor their own tournament? Who would donate gold to a tournament?

i been hosting tournaments and getting things like this done once every 4 months with a price pool of 400-500g for first place winner out of my pocket not charging any team a fee. I would LOVE this idea ALOT and help bring some pvp back to the game however i also agree it might not be something that should be focus on at the moment but would certainly be something to add into the game down the road.

@Aden.9306 said:
I don't suppose you guys could sprinkle in more Automated Tournaments during Spvp's prime time throughout the week and on weekends. Like when the maximum amount of people are playing Spvp, so we don't need to wait five hours between tourneys.

We added a 4th recently. One thing we're considering is looking into having an "On Demand" tournament. Perhaps it launches when X number of teams register. The other thing we'd have to consider is that the current reward levels are acceptable because of the limited number of them. But we could do something like greatly reduce the rewards for "On Demand" tournaments to compensate.

i would also like some tournaments more often i agree with aden, i feel like the 5 hour in between is a lot and usually the time for these tournaments are REALLY late for example (3:15am for a tournament) highly doubt ill be able to get my team to play at that time due to sleeping,work and family matters.

@Thane.9421 said:
At one time as I understand it, there was a tournament system in place where players could actually start a tournament. I'd like to suggest something like this be implemented again, where it launches once a required number of teams sign up, say. My primary reasoning is that the data seems to suggest a team queue would not work, but ATs currently aren't enough of an attraction to keep 5 man teams playing PvP. By introducing player-started ATs, you're creating a system where teams can be matched against other full teams without actually using the queue system.

I could see various options with rewards; from being purely given out by the tournament itself, to having teams have to pay an entree fee and basing rewards out of the prize pool generated by the entree fees. Even if there were no rewards at all, this would be an easier way for teams in the community to get in touch and get scrims happening etc. than the current completely word of mouth situation which seems to be stagnating heavily.

We discussed the viability of player sponsored tournaments internally a while back. Our thoughts were that players could pay a fee, a % of that fee would go towards prize money and the sponsor could choose the format. (Conquest, 2v2, Stronghold, Courtyard, etc etc.). Additionally, I wanted players to be able to donate gold to the prize pool.

We have pretty big concerns that the system just wouldn't get used. And it's not a small task to implement such a system. Given all the priorities we have, we decided to set the idea aside.

So I'm curious, how many would actually use such a system and sponsor their own tournament? Who would donate gold to a tournament?

How are you going to handle seeds after the Swiss system? For example, assuming we get ~25 teams and we have to play 4 rounds of Swiss, there will be 2 teams that are 4-0 and 7 that are 3-1. I'm also assuming you guys will want to do an 8 team Playoffs bracket, as 16 seems like a lot. There would then be 1 team who is 3-1 who doesn't make it into the playoffs, meaning there has to be some way to differentiate between all the 3-1 teams.

My personal suggestion is that you should keep track of match score difference. The first reason is this is an excellent way of determining the strongest teams in a tournament, allowing for proper high level seeds. For example, the best team in the tournament will win 500-0 3 times in a row and then 500-200 in their last Swiss game. Meanwhile, the 2nd best team might win 500-0 twice, a 500-150, and a 500-350 they barely won. You would be able to say the first team gets the "1st" seed in the playoffs.

This is more important in my opinion in determining the 3rd and 4th seeds. In an unlucky case of Swiss matchups, the best and 2nd best teams might play each other, causing one of them to be 3-1. Therefore, there would be a chance that they don't play each other in the finals. However, this could easily be solved using the score difference ranking system. The best team would likely get seed 1 from having more score difference than the 3rd or worse team that is also 4-0 at seed 2. Then, the 2nd best team would be 3-1 at 3rd seed due to having much better score difference than the rest of the teams that are 3-1. This allows the 3rd and 1st seed (2nd best and best) teams to play each other in the BO3 finals, which is what we want.

tl;dr use overall match score difference to determine seeds after the swiss system

@Darek.1836 said:
How are you going to handle seeds after the Swiss system? For example, assuming we get ~25 teams and we have to play 4 rounds of Swiss, there will be 2 teams that are 4-0 and 7 that are 3-1. I'm also assuming you guys will want to do an 8 team Playoffs bracket, as 16 seems like a lot. There would then be 1 team who is 3-1 who doesn't make it into the playoffs, meaning there has to be some way to differentiate between all the 3-1 teams.

My personal suggestion is that you should keep track of match score difference. The first reason is this is an excellent way of determining the strongest teams in a tournament, allowing for proper high level seeds. For example, the best team in the tournament will win 500-0 3 times in a row and then 500-200 in their last Swiss game. Meanwhile, the 2nd best team might win 500-0 twice, a 500-150, and a 500-350 they barely won. You would be able to say the first team gets the "1st" seed in the playoffs.

This is more important in my opinion in determining the 3rd and 4th seeds. In an unlucky case of Swiss matchups, the best and 2nd best teams might play each other, causing one of them to be 3-1. Therefore, there would be a chance that they don't play each other in the finals. However, this could easily be solved using the score difference ranking system. The best team would likely get seed 1 from having more score difference than the 3rd or worse team that is also 4-0 at seed 2. Then, the 2nd best team would be 3-1 at 3rd seed due to having much better score difference than the rest of the teams that are 3-1. This allows the 3rd and 1st seed (2nd best and best) teams to play each other in the BO3 finals, which is what we want.

tl;dr use overall match score difference to determine seeds after the swiss system

Our current plan is that we use opponent's win percentage. But in cases where opponent win percentage is the same, we could use score differential as a second tie breaker.

Any chance for an Android/Iphone App that gives AT Time Notifications much like how the app GW2 Even Timer works? Assuming AT times remain static indefinitely, this side-project could be one of the easiest apps to make for people who can't easily login GW2 for a time update.

Any chance for an Android/Iphone App that gives AT Time Notifications much like how the app GW2 Even Timer works? Assuming AT times remain static indefinitely, this side-project could be one of the easiest apps to make for people who can't easily login GW2 for a time update.

This is FANTASTIC. Or even something of a timer to add onto the wiki page if there already isn't one there.

Any chance for an Android/Iphone App that gives AT Time Notifications much like how the app GW2 Even Timer works? Assuming AT times remain static indefinitely, this side-project could be one of the easiest apps to make for people who can't easily login GW2 for a time update.

There wouldn't be immediate plans to do this ourselves. I could talk to the API folks about exposing more tournament data so that someone else could. But I don't have a lot of knowledge of what's involved in that, so I can't make any promises.

Yeah we need a more static AT schedule. You want to plan a certain moment in the week to practice with your own pvp team, but this is much harder when the AT times change all the time. Also a public timer of it would help many players that are planning to participate frequently in AT's, but also people that never heard of it and want to try it out.

Can we have match replays even if spectate mode isn't available live. At least it gives people a chance to watch what players do. Gw1 use to have match replays of past gvg games where you could watch your match and study what happened.

@Aden.9306 said:
I don't suppose you guys could sprinkle in more Automated Tournaments during Spvp's prime time throughout the week and on weekends. Like when the maximum amount of people are playing Spvp, so we don't need to wait five hours between tourneys.

We added a 4th recently. One thing we're considering is looking into having an "On Demand" tournament. Perhaps it launches when X number of teams register. The other thing we'd have to consider is that the current reward levels are acceptable because of the limited number of them. But we could do something like greatly reduce the rewards for "On Demand" tournaments to compensate.

@Aden.9306 said:
I don't suppose you guys could sprinkle in more Automated Tournaments during Spvp's prime time throughout the week and on weekends. Like when the maximum amount of people are playing Spvp, so we don't need to wait five hours between tourneys.

We added a 4th recently. One thing we're considering is looking into having an "On Demand" tournament. Perhaps it launches when X number of teams register. The other thing we'd have to consider is that the current reward levels are acceptable because of the limited number of them. But we could do something like greatly reduce the rewards for "On Demand" tournaments to compensate.

2017, currently on 2019 can we keep an update on this?

It's still planned, but it will be post swiss. Unfortunately, I can't be more specific than that.

@sephiroth.4217 said:
I hops this means team queue at our own discretion Again.

Truth be told, Im not giving up my job or my sleep to be able to make those 4 ATs, either the game will cater to my filthy Australian time zone or another game will.

Yes this infinity%. Im not going to cater my life style to a video games automated time gated tournaments. Make them accessible at any given time or you guys are waisting development hours that could be spent on actual pvp content like 2v2, 3v3, 10v10 for guilds. Or new maps that arent lagy.

Hey Ben & Cal, super glad to see this thread now, i'm a bit late tho but still wanted to share some toughts !

Swiss format is an awesome idea, direct elimination BO1 has always been quite punishing, especially for "lower tier" party, it can create a "why even bother, we will get eleminated first round anyway" frustration, but with a swiss format people will know they got at least a second shot.
More importantly it will balance way more the matches, and i believe this will solve the biggest problem in AT's currently: you often stomp or get stomped. Even matches are rare, and it's frustrating for both winning (playing an unchallenging match against players way under your lvl) & loosing team (gettin stomped without a chance). Overall i hope this will open AT's to a larger player base & solve the balance issues, 2 thumbs up & i'm 100% behind you !
Nothing to add about Special Tournaments, i heard the week of 2v2 received a very positive feedback and we obviously lack some different competitive content, so again 100% with you.

Now i wanted to ask you a question, it has been asked already but i still want to know your stance on this: have you discussed about a weekly tournament ?
I believe this can be very beneficial for the community for numerous reasons, what are you toughts about this idea ?